The U.S. Supreme Court recently deliberated on a critical issue regarding the interface between state and federal judicial systems in the context of malpractice cases. The case in question, Berk v. Choy, revolves around the applicability of Delaware’s procedural rules for medical malpractice cases within federal courts.
During the oral arguments, the Justices examined the compatibility of these state-specific requirements with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Notably, Justice Elena Kagan expressed strong resistance to adopting Delaware’s rules in the federal arena, arguing that such rules undermine the essence of the federal notice pleading system. According to Kagan, the Delaware requirements improperly force plaintiffs to substantiate their claims prematurely, in conflict with the federal system’s design (read more).
Highlighting specific points of contradiction, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson referenced Rule 3, which permits a case to commence simply upon filing the complaint, without additional affidavits as required by the Delaware statute. Additionally, Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out the discrepancy in timelines for serving answers to complaints, which varies between federal and Delaware procedures.
Conversely, Frederick Yarger, representing the defendants, argued that federal courts need not disregard entire state statutes if only parts conflict with federal rules. However, Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned this selective adaptation, likening it to creating a “Frankenstein” statute by cherry-picking elements of Delaware law.
The outcome remains uncertain as the bench is divided, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito offering limited commentary, leaving their stances unclear. It is anticipated that any decision will reflect a nuanced examination of the interaction between state procedures and federal rulemaking, with some Justices likely to challenge Delaware’s procedures in federal contexts.